MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134578801 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13464

Asymmetric foraging lowers the trophic level and omnivory in natural food webs

2021· article· en· W3134578801 on OpenAlexaff
Junjie Zheng, Ulrich Brose, Dominique Gravel, Benoît Gauzens, Mingyu Luo, Shaopeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTrophic levelForagingPredationFood webEcologyApex predatorTrophic cascadeBiologyEcosystemFood chainMesopredator release hypothesisOptimal foraging theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food webs capture the trophic relationships and energy fluxes between species, which has fundamental impacts on ecosystem functioning and stability. Within a food web, the energy flux distribution between a predator and its prey species is shaped by food quantity-quality trade-offs and the contiguity of foraging. But the distribution of energy fluxes among prey species as well as its drivers and implications remain unclear. Here we used 157 aquatic food webs, which contain explicit energy flux information, to examine whether a predator's foraging is asymmetric and biased towards lower or higher trophic levels, and how these patterns may change with trophic level. We also evaluate how traditional topology-based approaches may over- or under-estimate a predator's trophic level and omnivory by ignoring the asymmetric foraging patterns. Our results demonstrated the prevalence of asymmetric foraging in natural aquatic food webs. Although predators prefer prey at higher trophic levels with potentially higher food quality, they obtain their energy mostly from lower trophic levels with a higher food quantity. Both tendencies, that is, stronger feeding preference for prey at higher trophic levels and stronger energetic reliance on prey at lower trophic levels are alleviated for predators at higher trophic levels. The asymmetric foraging lowers trophic levels and omnivory at both species and food web levels, compared to estimates from traditional topology-based approaches. Such overestimations by topology-based approaches are most pronounced for predators at lower trophic levels and communities with higher number of trophic species. Our study highlights the importance of energy flux information in understanding the foraging behaviour of predators as well as the structural complexity of natural food webs. The increasing availability of flux-based food web data will thus provide new opportunities to reconcile food web structure, functioning and stability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207